Genuinely willing to discuss in good faith

[beachcitygirl]

Hello.

This is a thread for those who are uncomfortable with black and white and less than civil discourse around self id.

I welcome those with different views but I don't on this thread welcome those who only want to state their firm settled opinion without nuance or discussion that self id is absolutely wrong.

It's my view that there is no point in discussion if mind firmly made up.
I'll respect your legal right to that view but there's not much point chatting about it and pissing each other off.

There are plenty threads of gc women hoping to create more gc women and that's fine.

I'd like this to be a different space. A place for anyone with genuine questions, discussion points and where we all try to be civil and attempt to answer each other in good faith. Anyone who is unsure, let's talk:

My views are that trans women should be treated in every aspect as women and they are our natural allies against misogyny and the patriarchy and that women are more than their biology.

Plenty of women are against abortion.

Women who miscarry are denied essential medical care because of restrictive abortion laws. A 32 year old pharmacist, in Ireland, died as a result of sepsis because she was denied treatment following a miscarriage. If abortion laws had not been so strict she would have been treated earlier. Thank goodness the law changed, hopefully no other woman in Ireland will suffer the same fate.

I just want a space where it not a "we've all made up our minds and are calling trans women men " space

Nope you just want a space where everyone says that all trans women are women.

I think YABVU to start a thread and dictate what people are and aren't allowed to say. It might be your thread but it's not your forum and it's not up to you to police it.

Plenty have people have posed interesting questions which could get a discussion going but as you don't seem to like what direction the questions might take the discussion in, you haven't engaged with any of them.

I would be happy to have a good faith discussion, OP.

We do need to define terms, though. Otherwise how can we actually discuss anything?

the OP is very, very sure she's right. she said this on another thread about women who question gender woo:

It appears to me that so many women have been radicalised by this issue and have lost sight of what actually angers them

No matter how many times one asks you seem to get a different answer and as you speak to that worry they manufacture another different issue.

I suspect many just don't like trans women using the word woman. Which seems bizarre to me. Hating on a minority and frothing at the mouth over a word

I mean those radicalised women frothing at the mouth sound like nincompoops. you'd think the OP would easily be able to persuade them to 'get beyond common sense to good sense' (a line she's also been pushing)

personally I think someone who wants to persuade me to ignore common sense needs close watching, but I'm a radicalised frother, what do I know?

We Nick's have to stick together.

👋

I was going to post a fist bump, but the emoji label said fist punch. I am a pacifist Nic Cave, and you have done so many movies that I am worried you will take it as manly aggression rather than saying a highly stereotyped 'manly G'day!'

The scale of these figures is really not going to be influenced meaningfully by the tiny portion of people IDing as trans.

And the presumption seems to be on this thread that only people in those countries where self ID exists will be identifying as trans for this data. Of course that is not the case, other countries will have other more formal protocols for gender ID change and there will trans identifying people responding in the same way in those countries, so you can't make a case that it is dramatically skewed by that.

Of course you can. You can look at the outcomes for women in those countries that are not obsessively focussed on definition of terms.

We have been over this before.

It matters when it matters. It does matter in some organisations and in some instances.

Why would anyone want to deliberately allow false data into their data stream?

@beachcitygirl " But around 5 years ago I was very anti self id. Thankfully I had a brilliant person take the time to talk to me non-judgmentally and patiently and eventually I realised all my questions had been answered and all I was left with was

"Thats not common sense " and as an educated woman I recognised that is not good sense and so I thought hard and i recognised my misgivings came from a fear of the other. "

I have some magic beans to sell you, now how many would you like to buy?! :-/

But how can we examine data, stats, and evidence without clear definitions of terms?

how are you figuring out who has good outcomes?

what is this group with good outcomes?

what do they all have in common?

obsessively focussed on definition of terms.

As opposed to obsessively focussed on not defining terms?

If the word 'woman' means 'women and some men' then the former category is meaningless. It just means 'people'.

'People' is fine as a category, of course, but it doesn't tell us much about sex inequalities.

I can tell you right now, you could give this data to a reputable statistician, outline your concerns (and actually, I do appreciate what you're saying) and they would tell you the scale of the data means that any influence would be pretty negligible.

They would point to the small numbers already, and they would show you that those identifying as trans have poorer outcomes on all those measures, and would not inflate the data in such a way that women appeared to be faring better than if sex rather gender was used as the identifying term.

'I believe all desks are tables, and should be treated as tables in all cases'

'define table'

'flat top, 4 legs'

'yep, seems legit. right, what table rights do you demand?'

see how it could go if you could just give a definition? we could all move on

rainbows, kittens, discussion. 'twould be amazing

Wait, is Nick Cage on nethuns? That's what I heard

She was a dentist. Small teeny point of order because she deserves truth when there were so many lies. And they continue the lies, not you obviously. She wasn’t the only one, we were lucky a journalist published the story. Or once again we would never have known. And they told lies about her too. (Kitty Holland in the Irish Times). And I’m damned if I’m going back to that world of men’s rights by pandering to the wants of men in dresses.

Ah, we're back to the whole 'reality is created by feelings, which involves drawing selectively on some facts and denying that others exist. Certain powerful people get to make those decisions and others either prop up the chosen illusory reality and don't mention the facts they are told to ignore, or are punished' thing.

So we don't look at the excluded women. Because we don't look at definitions of words. And we don't look for accurate data. And then because we're all playing in the chosen illusion we wonder what women are cross about and moaning about because the facts they're upset about aren't there, remember?

And I'm left again, reminded, of that line about 'but apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?' Because once someone is trying to sell you their own personal reality and persuade you to ignore the facts they don't like on one matter, why on earth would I expect them to make sense on any other matter?

How on earth can you measure the outcome for a something that has no definition?

Disappointing that the OP has run away - but understandable when faced with the hard questions about definitions, sport, safety and safeguarding that the rest of the world is now recognising. The lack of engagement is always telling.

It appears to me that so many women have been radicalised by this issue and have lost sight of what actually angers them

YES

Hmmmm. I'm done on this thread.

I was up for a debate in good faith but I don't see any good faith from the OP at all. Instead I see one impossible bind of an opening post that calls for a nuanced debate with rigid rules which can't be nuanced.... and now the OP has run off. Another "interesting" angle on no debate.

have lost sight of what actually angers them

No, I'm pretty well up on that thanks. I know exactly what I'm angry about.

Since all these good faith questions seem to be going unanswered, anyone want to swap a decent lemon drizzle recipe?

@FOJN Are we running a sweepstake on the number of posts on this thread before the OP goes full tonto? lol

I thought a hundred posts before a flounce but sometimes we are swines and like to have a bit of fun with posters we can't take seriously so this thread is filling up quite quickly. "

It is filling up very quickly isn't it, lol, the thread was still on page 1 when i hit the ' post ' button, but my post landed on page 3 :-D

Hmmm, page 3, now there's a thing, how many transwomen ever appeared there, or how many men for that matter?
And why was there such a dearth of them? Can you shed any light OP @beachcitygirl ? OP, OP, are you there? lol